Interesting. I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles.

Right -- and in fact, contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so.

That may be true (do you have any figures, PD?), but I think you'll find that many such paedophiles try to stay away from childen completely in order to reduce temptation - just as dry alcoholics tend not to spend their time in bars or pubs.

Adopting a child would be the opposite of that strategy. If he started to be sexually attracted to the child, the temptation would be unrelenting.

most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so.

That may be true (do you have any figures, PD?),

Not readily at hand, no. I've seen research on this in the past, but it's been a while. Dan Savage also mentions this occasionally in his column, "Savage Love".

Quote

but I think you'll find that many such paedophiles try to stay away from childen completely in order to reduce temptation - just as dry alcoholics tend not to spend their time in bars or pubs.

I think that's very likely, yes. That's certainly the advice I would give to a pedophile struggling with his problem. Dan Savage said the same thing to a pedophile who wrote to him for advice once about, IIRC, a job he was interested in applying for that involved a lot of working with children, saying he thought he'd be able to handle it properly. Savage said he was nuts and exhorted him not to take the job.

Quote

Adopting a child would be the opposite of that strategy. If he started to be sexually attracted to the child, the temptation would be unrelenting.

Yep.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

But what about your sex-life, Quesi? Did they ask about your orientation, your sexual history, and your current behaviour? Did they ask you if you were a paedophile?

No. I was not asked specifically if I was a pedophile.

Interesting. I wonder why not - it's a simple question, after all. And I'm sure that many of the other questions were designed to answer it.

Quote

I was also asked about my sexual activities, as a way of determining who else might be in the home on a regular basis and have access to a child, or to determine whether I had a string of strange men wandering in and out of my home, and presenting a threat to a child.

Fair enough.

It does strike me as a little surreal that any adult can have a child of their own, regardless of their lifestyle, criminal record, age or financial position etc. But if an adult wants to raise someone else's child, they have to prove their competence and suitability.

But I don't see how else the system could operate...

Quote

In spite of careful screenings, abuse happens.

Yes, and in those situations, the blame is assigned not only to the adoptive parents, but to the authorities who gave them the child. Hence their caution...

Quote

Children in foster care are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse.

According to New York law firm Orlow, Orlow and Orlow, as many as 75 percent of all children in the foster care system, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse. A 2009 article written by this law firm, Sexual Abuse: An Epidemic in Foster Care Settings? cites a John Hopkins University study that discovered that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster-care system is more than four times as high as in the general population and in group homes the rate of sexual abuse is more than 28 times that of the general population.

By the way, someone just PM'd me to thank me for starting this thread, and I replied that I didn't start it - my OP and the first 4/5 replies were originally posted on another thread, and the mods split them off.

Hence the rather odd thread title, in which I'm apparently referring to myself in the third person - which Gnu happens to think is a rather pretentious affectation, which he would never employ himself.

Actually, now that I think of it, it's a little misleading for the mods to split off a thread and not tell people in the new thread what they've done. Perhaps people have been reading this thread and trying to work out why I started it and what my agenda is (and why I'm so pretentious). Maybe Joe thinks I'm pursuing him aggressively by starting threads critical of him. All of which speculation would be a waste of time.

Hi Albeto, Reading your post, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me; we seem to be in agreement on many points of this.

Could be.

OK.

Quote

I hope you don't mind my using this as an opportunity to sharpen my reasoning skills anyway. I'm not really sure where I stand, I just desire to identify and reject ideas that have always been held "just because," as many of them (for me personally) are rooted in religion with a moral code that depends on an external source of justice.

That's cool, Albeto. You're talking about received wisdom, and you're now sceptical of it.

The major problem with this discussion is the absence of data. We don't know how many paedophiles/hebephiles adopt children; and more importantly we don't know what proportion of children are abused by those people.

If we knew that 90% of paedophiles abused their adopted children, we could justify forbidding all paedophiles from adopting children, on the grounds that the risk was too high; if it was only 1%, we might accept that level of risk.

But we don't have those figures; so it would make sense to err on the side of caution.

I'm sure it is; the test-case is a 31-year-old man, because that's Joe's age, and an 11-year-old girl, because that was the age of the model he posted in the other thread as an example of someone he found sexually attractive.

She was 11? Wow, coulda fooled me!

You were supposed to be fooled. But I still think that Joe's point was spurious. See below.

My bolding:

Quote

I recall hanging out with a friend of mine in a hostel when he started flirting with this woman. She was cute as a button, laughed at all his jokes, they got along really well. She made some comment some teen movie star (Corey Haimes, I think) and he realized she was younger than she looked. She was, I think 13, and he was 22 or 23 at the time. I swear to gods she appeared at least 17 to me, and I had no reason to rationalize her looking older. He was crushed because her age was a turn-off for him,

Right, and that's how it should be. Such a relationship would be inappropriate, and your friend felt that, on a gut level.

When I saw Joe's photo, I guessed that she was 13. And I asked myself whether I should feel guilty for thinking that she was attractive.

So I asked myself whether I had ever felt sexual attraction for a 13-year-old before. And whether I had ever acted on those feelings.

And the answer to both those questions is yes. When I was 14, I fell in love for the first time with a beautiful girl named Rosamund. Who was 13. She fell in love with me and we went out for eighteen months. Seriously, she was gorgeous; long blond hair, she played tennis, she introduced me to Deep Purple. I was well smitten.

We never had full sex, too young; but we spent hours and hours learning how to kiss (in the back-row of the cinema, as tradition demanded - do kids still do that these days?), and generally exploring and fooling around.

And this sexual activity with a 13-year-old was entirely appropriate, given my age. We did what kids do.

So when I look at Joe's photo, I can easily re-connect with the 14-year-old I used to be, and look at her through his eyes; but then I look at her through my 58-year-old eyes, and I'm turned off, as your friend was.

Quote

Quote

It's a fact that step-children are more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than biological children. That's a good reason to be vigilant in those scenarios, and it's why adoption agencies' enquiries are so intense.

Vigilant to the point of denial of privileges just because they could be abused? Why the special privileges for step-dads, priests, teachers, and therapists (everyone but pedophiles) then? What's the difference? Why are pedophiles more dangerous given the same conditions as others who could (and do) abuse certain relationships?

The data problem again; I don't know whether paedophiles are in fact less trustworthy.

True enough, but my job was considerably more awkward and potentially dangerous than anything I've done as a parent. It's part of being a mature, responsible adult to compartmentalize one's life into appropriate outlets. Women expect that from their gynecologists, men expect that from their proctologists, patients expect that from their therapists,

But those relationships aren't 24/7, that's my point. A gynecologist can stop being a gynecologist when he leaves the office. A paedophile is always a paedophile, and the adopted child is always present.

Quote

But I'm not addressing the trauma, I'm addressing the idea that pedophiles are in some way less capable than non-pedophiles when it comes to suppressing an involuntary, physiological response to a given stimuli.

I'm not asserting that paedophiles are less capable; but it's the data problem again; we don't know if they are or not.

Quote

I just don't know that we really have the data on this one way or the other.

It's not a loaded question; a loaded question is a logical fallacy where the question contains an assumption - the classic example being, have you stopped beating your wife? What you mean is that you don't like the implications of the answer...

Quote

and a red herring,

I don't think it is.

Quote

and appeal to emotion, fear, and other subtle and not so subtle problems.

It's not an appeal to fear; we're trying to calculate risk, which isn't an exact science.

And yet, I think that people's emotions are significant and relevant when making these kind of decisions. Emotions are informative.

So please do me the favour of answering, Albeto. Here's the question again:

Quote

Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience. Would you be cool with that?

Actually, you don't need to answer; I'm just going to assume that your answer is No. Because, if it was Yes, you would have simply said so by now.

And the implication is that if you're not prepared to put your own daughter through that experience, then nobody's daughter should go through it.

The major problem with this discussion is the absence of data. We don't know how many paedophiles/hebephiles adopt children; and more importantly we don't know what proportion of children are abused by those people.

If we knew that 90% of paedophiles abused their adopted children, we could justify forbidding all paedophiles from adopting children, on the grounds that the risk was too high; if it was only 1%, we might accept that level of risk.

But we don't have those figures; so it would make sense to err on the side of caution.

Totally agreed.

But...

In what way are we assuming there's a need to err on the side of caution in a way we've rejected for every other non-typical sexual orientation? We don't assume (as much anymore) homosexuals "groom" people to brainwash them into thinking gay sex is okay. We don't assume transgendered people are a danger to society. We don't err on the side of caution when it comes to children working with priests and teachers and step-parents and other groups known to have members take advantage of kids. What is it about the group of pedophiles that makes them more likely than others to take advantage of a situation to satisfy their own sense of gratification at the cost of a child when the same situation is ignored for others? You bring up adoption and I think that's a fair point about growing intimacy with children living in the home, but living with a child day in and day out renders them more like family than not, so I would suspect that element would be reduced. But again, we have no data (or I don't know of any), so I'm just wondering why this group is considered more dangerous than others.

When I saw Joe's photo, I guessed that she was 13. And I asked myself whether I should feel guilty for thinking that she was attractive.

So I asked myself whether I had ever felt sexual attraction for a 13-year-old before. And whether I had ever acted on those feelings.

And the answer to both those questions is yes. When I was 14, I fell in love for the first time with a beautiful girl named Rosamund. Who was 13. She fell in love with me and we went out for eighteen months. Seriously, she was gorgeous; long blond hair, she played tennis, she introduced me to Deep Purple. I was well smitten.

We never had full sex, too young; but we spent hours and hours learning how to kiss (in the back-row of the cinema, as tradition demanded - do kids still do that these days?), and generally exploring and fooling around.

And this sexual activity with a 13-year-old was entirely appropriate, given my age. We did what kids do.

So when I look at Joe's photo, I can easily re-connect with the 14-year-old I used to be, and look at her through his eyes; but then I look at her through my 58-year-old eyes, and I'm turned off, as your friend was.

So this experience of yours is typical. It falls solidly on the bell curve of emotional responses to these kinds of situations. That alone doesn't render it "right," is all I'm saying. For what it's worth, at age 13 all my crushes were on men older than 25. I thought teen boys looked (and behaved) rather childishly. I don't think it means anything either, except as another illustration of the variety of human sexual behavior.

The data problem again; I don't know whether paedophiles are in fact less trustworthy.

That's exactly why I can't simply agree and be done with it. I don't mind being wrong, I just want a reason to hang my hat on, know what I mean? And for me, the emotional repulsion isn't a valid reason because it's too subjective and not, in and of itself, indicative of a reasoned argument.

But those relationships aren't 24/7, that's my point. A gynecologist can stop being a gynecologist when he leaves the office. A paedophile is always a paedophile, and the adopted child is always present.

A gynecologist has a woman in an enormously vulnerable position. Such a doctor could quite easily take advantage of the situation for his/her own sexual gain. Many (most?) patients trust their health care professionals and if a doctor says, "I'm going to do XYZ now," we assume there's a reason, clench our teeth, try not to think about how uncomfortable it is, and wait patiently for the touching to stop. Therapists work with patients over months and years, getting them to expose their most vulnerable fears and desires. If I recall correctly, therapists are statistically a bit more likely to abuse a patient sexually than a priest (although my source might be flawed - I don't recall). What I'm getting at is that abuse of relationship can happen in many contexts, pedophilia being but one of them. We don't assume most therapists, most priests, or most doctors are going to abuse their status and gain the upper hand for their own sexual gratification. But we do assume most pedophiles will. What's the difference? What do pedophiles have, or lack, that other potential abusers don't?

I'm not asserting that paedophiles are less capable; but it's the data problem again; we don't know if they are or not.

Which is why I'm confused as to why the assumption is there. I recognize it's a traditional assumption, but we're talking about reason and logic here. We're picking apart the details to find out if the traditional assumption is accurate. It may turn out to be that way and prevention of abuse is certainly more virtuous. That's why, as much as this conversation is difficult for me on an emotional level, I'm trying to figure out just what these details are.

It's not a loaded question; a loaded question is a logical fallacy where the question contains an assumption - the classic example being, have you stopped beating your wife? What you mean is that you don't like the implications of the answer...[/quote]

Right - it's loaded in that you're essentially asking, albeto, are you okay with putting your four year old daughter in the tub for a pedophile to bathe? I'm damned if I say yes, then I expose myself as some kind of sick mother who would willingly offer her child up for rape (which is the scenario I interpret you to be implying). If I say no, then I admit that I don't trust adults who are attracted to young adults (post-pubescent but considered pedophile according to law) to be capable, nurturing, responsible parents. Besides, you're talking about a four year old and I'm not even considering that for this discussion. For me that's a whole 'nuther thing.

I think so in that it distracts the conversation from the kind of person who fits the legal definition of pedophile by virtue of being sexually attracted to young adults (post pubescent), to a conversation about a four year girl old being emotionally groomed for sex with an adult man.

If it's fictional (say CGI or animated), I would at least be willing to tolerate its production, distribution, and ownership.

The word tolerate here is interesting, and further demonstrates my point that pedophiles are persecuted for thought crime. If there is no victim involved in the production, and it leads to fewer sexual assaults against real children, why the hesitation? I believe this is social conditioning. You've been taught all of your live to villify pedophiles and despite logical arguments that they are not nearly as dangerous as you have been lead to believe, your kneejerk reaction is still to punish and control them.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions.

They are dissimilar in ways that invalidate their use as analogous substitutes for each other in the context of this thread.

That is not necessarily true. It would depend on the situation. For example, I assume most of you would be uncomfortable leaving your child in the care of a pedophile. So I would ask, would you be uncomfortable leaving a male coma patient in the care of a homosexual nurse?

That is a valid analogous situation, is it not? The attraction is present, the possible victim is vulnerable. Yet I believe the second situation gives you more pause. Why? Modern social conditioning has taught us that it's incorrect to assume the worst of homosexuals, but no such consideration has been extended to pedophiles. It is simply assumed that the pedophile is a rabid amoral opportunistic rapist but where the gay nurse is concerned, let's give him the benefit of doubt.

As Albeto mentioned, how about a gay proctologist, or even a straight gynecologist? Albeto said it very well when she asked why pedophiles were singled out as dangerous while others in similar situations are given a pass.

Quesi linked a study from Harvard that she seemed to believe gave evidence that the discrimination against pedophiles was warranted, however as it's been pointed out by others, any such study is highly flawed as their data represents a biased fraction of the pedophile population. If you read the study, the first half of it is a note about the limitations of their research. Their data comes from interviewing convicted pedophiles in prison.

That would be like interviewing convicted car thieves and then concluding that anyone who likes cars is likely to steal one. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and it's ignoring the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles out there do not act on their compulsions and live normal lives. Frankly it's fear mongering and an institution like Harvard should be ashamed of publishing it.

« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 09:52:58 PM by joebbowers »

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a post-pubescent 11-year-old.

Fixed that for you.

Joe, since you're the one insisting on calling yourself a paedophile when you're not, you're not in a position to be pedantic about my terminology.

Well, since you originally said "Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child" and then gave an example of "a 31-year-old and a pubescent 11-year-old" I thought I was correcting your mistake. I apologize, apparently it was your intention to write a nonsensical sentence that conflicts with it's own definition.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

I wonder if he's as sincere as he would have us believe. One could also question his sincerity based off the tone on the website where he is raising funds for his daughter. Or that he is attempting to raise 50K for a porno to help benefit the LGBT community with no links to support how they will be beneficiaries of these funds.

What's wrong with trying to raise money for my daughter's operation? If anyone but me had posted that it wouldn't even have raised an eyebrow.

And regarding the One Million Moms porn parody, I didn't post that here to raise money, I already posted it on Reddit where I can get far more views. I only posted it here because I thought some of you would be interested in knowing that someone was taking a shot at One Million Moms, a conservative religious anti-gay organization. It wasn't even my idea, someone half-jokingly suggested it on Reddit and it got a lot of support so I decided to try to make it happen.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Can you not question the motives of someone who chooses to adopt the very sex (and in this situation race) that is their primary attraction? IMO it's a very telling sign that the intent may not be as pure as we would be led to believe.

I think what you mean to say is age, not sex or race. You wouldn't have a problem with a heterosexual man adopting an Asian girl, would you? The problem is a pedophile adopting a child, right? Well, isn't it normal to adopt children while they're children? I mean, it's pretty rare for someone to adopt an 18 year old.

Also, there was no motive. Your use of that word makes me chuckle, I imagine you wearing thick glasses and a tin foil hat, dreaming up these conspiracies in a dimly-lit basement. I didn't choose to adopt them. When I met my wife I didn't even know she had kids. They live with her parents, and she didn't even tell me about them for the first three months we were together. She thought I might leave her because of her 'baggage'.

I don't see why the pedophile would want to torment themselves with daily temptation, unless they enjoyed something more than the love a parent shares with their child.

Yes, it's inconceivable that a pedophile could want to be a parent for the sheer joy of parenthood. They must have ulterior motives.

By your logic a gay man would not have any straight male friends or a male doctor wouldn't treat women, unless they enjoyed something more than friendship or helping people. After all, why else would they torment themselves with daily temptation?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

They're fun. you get to live through their eyes and see things again for the first time, they first time they experience something it feels like you get to experience it all over again.

They're cute. You can buy them cute clothes and take cute pictures with them. They do cute poses and say cute things.

They're stupid. When you're not laughing with them, you can laugh at them. They don't know how to do things, how to use things, how to say things. It's hilarious. They think they know everything, when in truth they know almost nothing.

They do stuff. You can make them wash dishes and do laundry while you watch TV.

They need you. They fall down, hurt themselves, get a booboo, they want daddy to patch them up, and it's nice to feel like a hero.

Any other obvious things you already know that I can pretend to answer for you?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

at what age do you prepare them to defend themselves against sexual predators?

Perhaps you should purchase a book about raising children. I'm sure your local bookstore has several such volumes that can answer your questions. Look in the self-help section under stop being a fucking troll.

at what age do you prepare them to defend themselves against sexual predators?

Perhaps you should purchase a book about raising children. I'm sure your local bookstore has several such volumes that can answer your questions. Look in the self-help section under stop being a fucking troll.